Taken from the article on www.washingtonpost.com

"People who have a religious or moral belief should not be forced to participate in an act they find abhorrent."

Then they are not capable of doing their jobs and should find other employment!

While I'm agnostic, pro-choice (really pro-abortion) and very liberal on social issues, your POV doesn't seam very liberal to me. I mean just look at how the Dem party will go out of its way to protect the rights of illegal immigrants to work, and here, someone with a religious belief should be fired (I assume you support firing IF they don't look for other employment on their own).

Your POV sounds like the POV of the meanies in the GOP.

Note I'm NOT saying I disagree with your POV (I'm still on the fence here), but it just sounds harsh to me.

I still think that if you take a job, you had better be prepared to do EVERYTHING in the job description. You don't get to opt out, particularly if you knew going in that you'd be required to do something you don't like. I think of it as a question of personal integrity. You don't get to lie in a job interview.

Think of it this way. You don't take a job as an HR specialist if you're afraid to fire people, do you? And if you did anyway, then refused to fire anyone, would you be surprised if yours was the next head on the chopping block? Of course not...

If cutting up animals was against your religion, would you go to work for a butcher? No? Gee, I wonder why.

I'm just deeply grateful that I live in Chicago, where pharmacists are required to fill all legal prescriptions. If they try not to do that, then they get a ticket. If they insist, then they get their licenses lifted.

So, RS708, you would believe it was morally acceptable for a doctor that was Pro life, to force a woman to carry a baby to term if that was his job, because "thats his(or her) job"? You must also then believe that the Nazi's who were under hitler made the right choice in killing the jews, because in Nazi Germany, that was "their job" As long as I say its my job, you would be on board with me doing it? Its a joke to say that a person has no right to determine what procedure they will and wont do. You would say that a doctor had the obligation to force sterilize people, if the Gov't created a law that said people on welfare couldn't have babies? Sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold it, its the same excuse that the Nazi's gave for their genocide, "Just following orders" If you really believe that the law is always right, you are a sad person indeed.

So then you would be OK with the Christian owner of a business requiring all his employees to attend his Church every Sunday, or face a fine or firing.

fold and not stand up for their beliefs. It seems that modern society with their lack of any moral standings just can't stand to see anyone who does have them take a stand.

patron002, your post was insane.

a doctor that was Pro life, to force a woman to carry a baby to term if that was his job, because "thats his(or her) job"?

There is no such job as "Pro-Life Doctor". And even if there was, the woman would just go to another doctor.

You would say that a doctor had the obligation to force sterilize people, if the Gov't created a law that said people on welfare couldn't have babies?

Good lord...are you kidding me? If the government ever did pass such a law, civilization as we know would be over anyway. Doctors' rights would be the least of our problems.

Those are the most ridiculous examples imaginable, but I did get a good laugh. Come join us back here in reality any time now.

Hey, patron002, please name one hospital anywhere, that hires a doctor to force women to carry a baby to term as part of their job description.

Patron002 your an idiot.

I think the major point that people are missing, is that nowhere are we saying that a person is not allow to refuse any aspect of their job description, only that is law would make it illegal for an employer to penalize this person, and that is wrong.

Do I believe that a person should just quit their job at any objection? No. They should work out with the employer for a transfer to a position that does not include the objection in the job description. But if they wont do their work, then the employer should be able to do what is necessary to find someone who will.

Look at it from the point of view of the employer, they hired someone to do a job and part of that job involves dispensing contraceptive drugs. If the employee is unwilling to do what the employer considers an essential job function, the employer should have the right to take whatever steps are necessary, including dismissing the employee.

I find it ironic that conservatives, who often complain about excessive government regulation of businesses, what to tie the hands of employers and prevent them for making sure their employees are doing their jobs.

Conservatives also like to pretend liberals don't want to work, are socialists, pro-welfare, you name it. But now they want people to get paid for refusing to do their jobs. To be fair, I would have to believe any reasonable conservative is opposed to this type of legislation. (Apparently all the unreasonable ones are on the Fray).

Your examples is total crap AND I assume you know it is.

BIG DIFFERENCE with an OWNER imposing their values on their staff and a staff member asking to NOT perform a duty because of their religious believes.

Here it is LIB like me that are MAKING someone do something that is against their religious believes. AGAIN, does that sound LIBERAL to you?????

As much as I dislike Christians and all religious people I don't have a warm feeling about firing them because they object to something. AND messyone point about people taking a job would be VALID, IF it started from this point forward.

What about all the people that took that job BEFORE these rules were imposed?

Anyhow, good to see libs support firing people!

Presumably, anyone who went to school to become a pharmacist in the last 45 years was aware that contraceptives are dispensed at drug stores. So, I'm not sure what new rules are being imposed on employees today. Dispensing all prescribed medications was in their job description. Asking them to do their job doesn't sound like an unreasonable request.

What the proponents of these new rules to be imposed on the employers is for the employee to have the right to refuse to perform a job function without any consequences.

Think about that.

When Rosa Parks and Martin Luthor King protested against Jim Crow laws, they knew that they would likely be arrested and they accepted that as a consequence of their civil disobedience. What these contraceptive protesters want is a right to disobedience w/o consequence.

Again, isn't accepting the consequences of one's actions supposed to be a conservative value?

Well I did many a 'sit in' in my day and we are bitch that it shouldn't impact our college education. We wanted credit for classes we missed during the sit in!

Like I said I don't have any feeling on this issue one way or the other. AND I understand the points my fellow libs have been making on this issue.

Again, as much as I disrespect religion isn't there a difference between a religious exception and just your general civil disobedience? Did the SC grant certain indian tribes the right to use drugs since those were religious traditions?

Like I said I have no strong feelings here. So if the law allows the employer to fire them for not performing their duty then I'll be OK with that. But it still sounds mean to me. Oh well on one ever said being mean was bad!